College campuses have a long history of student protests, and these demonstrations invite questions about the limits of free speech. How far is too far? In this pair of essays, University of Pennsylvania law professor Claire Finkelstein and Trinity Washington University president Patricia McGuire present two different views of the role of free speech in the university. Read them and consider how your ideas fit into this conversation.
- In her piece, Finkelstein argues for stricter rules for free speech on university campuses. Why? How might free speech rights conflict with Title VI protections?
- Finkelstein contends that the current free speech rules model on college campuses “privilege student expression over most other values.” What other values does she think universities should prioritize?
- McGuire begins her essay with a short personal narrative. What’s the point of this narrative? How does this story support McGuire’s central argument?
- So what? Who cares? Why does free speech – and restrictions placed on free speech – matter to university administrators? To students and faculty? To people outside the university community? Use a template from Chapter 9 to explain what’s at stake in this conversation.
- These essays are set up as a pro/con debate. However, McGuire and Finkelstein don’t disagree on everything. Identify a key point or belief about free speech on college campuses that both authors agree with.
- Respond to the conversation Finkelstein and McGuire are participating in. Which argument persuaded you the most? Why? Use a template from Chapter 4 to frame your response. Draw on your own experiences to support your view.
They Say I Blog 
I don’t believe we should have limited of speak and protects in any context once we start limiting ourselves to anything is when are no longer the land of the free that the founding fathers had planned for us. I disagree with X’s view that freedom should be limited because, look at the current state of the u.s.a it is divided in all matters and when one side disagrees with the other’s punishment follows soon after. Both Finkelstein and Mcgurie both agree that if something is done on one side of the fine-tuned balance it would be ruined forever.
LikeLike
Both Finkelstein and McGuire agree that universities should teach students how to speak. While McGuire is convinced that that teaching consists of providing a forum for letting students make mistakes so that they learn as they go. Finkelstien isn’t as optimistic that people learn that way. She argues for requirements of respect and enforcing those expectations. Both of these views overlook what I consider of first importance: forming the heart of the speaker. As Jesus of Nazareth taught, “The good man brings good things out of the good treasure of his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil treasure of his heart. For out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks” (Luke 6:45). This being the case, if students love their neighbors and their enemies, their speech can be unfettered and free. They can say absolutely anything, and it will always be shaped by love. To the extent that students despise one another and use words to cause damage, the dilemma of speech restrictions will continue. I argue for an education of the heart.
LikeLike
Claire Finkelstein argues for stricter rules on free speech because she believes that current campus policies give too much freedom to student expression and not enough protection to students who might be harmed by offensive or discriminatory speech. She points out that this can conflict with Title VI, which requires schools to prevent discrimination based on race or national origin. Finkelstein thinks universities should focus more on creating an inclusive and respectful environment rather than allowing all speech, even if it’s harmful. On the other hand, Patricia McGuire starts with a personal story to show how tough conversations can help people grow, which supports her belief that students should be exposed to challenging ideas. Both authors agree that speech has real consequences and that universities have a responsibility to set the tone, even if they disagree on how far restrictions should go. I personally found Finkelstein’s argument more convincing because I think schools have a duty to protect students from speech that can create a hostile environment. I’ve seen how certain comments in class, even if meant as “free speech,” can shut down meaningful discussion and make others feel unwelcome. This debate matters because it affects how universities balance learning, safety, and inclusion. It is for society as a whole and not just for students.
LikeLike
As Finkelstein says, students should be taught by the universities about topics that fall under the umbrella of societal problematic controversies, and are often brought up in free speech discussions. Going even further, she states it is the school’s job to allow them the tools to make informed decisions on these topics to create informed and credible opinions. Like her, I believe these same principles, but I would argue that McGuire also makes a similar claim, aligning their ideas on the same level, strengthening her argument just the same. McGuire also says schools are responsible for teaching these kids about these controversies by allowing them the space to explore, challenge, and express themselves in a wider range of issues, and that this concept should align with the broad-minded and tolerant learning environment of that institution. Going even further into that, McGuire argues that the challenging of these political ideas is the university’s responsibility, ensuring further in evidential form that these students are making informed decisions, by giving them tools to experience both sides. Contrastingly to your point, I find this argument more convincing in assessing a university’s level of learning, safety, and inclusion, helping students understand the essential skill of societal means post-grad and the experience as a student. I believe as you stated, that this argument matters because it affects society on a larger scale, as well as students, but I would add that the authors agree more than disagree at the core of this topic, and both hold the most value to the safety, educational understanding, and mutual respect of the human opinion, no matter how different the circumstances.
LikeLike
Finkelstein and McGuire both argue that universities should teach students how to speak but they disagree on the method. McGuire supports open discussion where students can make mistakes and learn from them, while Finkelstein believes respectful speech must be required and enforced.
LikeLike